Estimates Vote

Courts Administration Authority, $92,441,000

Minister:

Hon. V.A. Chapman, Deputy Premier, Attorney-General.

Departmental Advisers:

Hon. C. Kourakis, Chief Justice, Courts Administration Authority.

Mr T. Pearce, Chief Financial Officer, Courts Administration Authority.

Ms J.-A. Burgess, State Courts Administrator, Courts Administration Authority.

Mr. M. Church, Manager, Accounting Services, Courts Administration Authority.

Mr C. Black, Business Analyst, Courts Administration Authority.

The CHAIR: Welcome back, everybody, to the second hearing of Estimates Committee A. I advise that the following members have requested to be discharged—the members for Reynell, Taylor and Croydon—and have been replaced by the members for Kaurna, West Torrens and Enfield. I am going to make some opening remarks as Chair. The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions.

I understand that the Attorney-General and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed on an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the Attorney and lead speaker for the opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings is accurate, as previously distributed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As printed.

The CHAIR: Are you comfortable with that?

Mr PICTON: Yes.

The CHAIR: Thank you for that. Changes to the committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure that the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the Attorney undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 26 October 2018. I propose to allow the Attorney and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes should they wish.

There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions, based on about three questions per member, alternating each side, with some flexibility in that. A member who is not part of the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper.

There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house; that is, it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the Attorney, rather than the Attorney's advisers. The Attorney may refer questions to advisers for a response. The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner as sittings of the house are broadcast, through the IPTV system within parliament house and via the web stream link to the internet.

I will now proceed to open the following line for examination: the Courts Administration Authority. The minister appearing is the Attorney-General. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 1. Attorney, do you wish to make an opening statement?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, I am glad to be here on this side of the table. Secondly, I would like to introduce to the committee, for those who do not know, the Chief Justice, the Hon. Chris Kourakis SC, to my right, who is with us here as the head of the Courts Administration Authority. We also have the State Courts Administrator, Julie-Anne Burgess, to my left and the Chief Financial Officer, Trevor Pearce.

There are all sorts of other eminent wise members of the CAA behind me and advisers, who I hope will be able to assist in the inquiries of the committee today. I wish to place on record my appreciation to the Chief Justice and members of the judiciary in his court, the District Court, the Magistrates Court and, to no lesser extent, the Coroner's Court, for the work they do during the year, and to Ms Burgess and her team for the administration. They have recently celebrated their 20^th year as a rather unique model of administration in South Australia, which is an excellent achievement.

I would like to formally place on the record my appreciation to the government for their support in the appointment of Mr Patrick O'Sullivan, to replace Judge Millsteed in the District Court, and to ensure that there is a continuity of judicial officers available for the important work they do, which is to administer justice on behalf of the people of South Australia.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney. Member for Kaurna, do you wish to make a statement?

Mr PICTON: Thank you, Chair. I will not make an opening statement. I welcome the Attorney-General in her new role. I am sure she will enjoy it much better on that side of the table. I welcome her officers, but particularly welcome the Chief Justice and thank you for lowering yourself to our humble status here in the House of Assembly.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PICTON: Well, that's true. I think we are technically the highest court, so welcome to our higher court.

The CHAIR: Welcome to all, committee advisers and guests in the gallery. I invite questions. Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, Chair. My first question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 145, probate fees, where it is detailed that this year there is projected to be an increase in probate fees, from $9.3 million up to $9.7 million—an increase of $600,000 that the government is expecting to receive in probate fees. Can the Attorney or the Chief Justice outline how that was arrived at.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to seek some support from Mr Trevor Pearce, who is the minister for money at this end of the table. I am sure that he can provide some explanation for the initiative that was commenced by the previous government.

Mr PEARCE: On 4 May 2015, cabinet approved the introduction of a tiered probate application fee structure as part of their 2015-16 state budget. The fee structure, as it stands now, is as follows: up to $200,000 the fee is $797; from $200,001 to half a million dollars, $1,594; up to $1 million is $2,125; and over $1 million is $3,187. The tiered fee structure replaced the flat probate application fee of $1,114 in 2015-16 terms and came into effect on 28 February. The new fee structure was estimated to collect an additional $2.5 million annually, bringing the total annual collections from probate applications to approximately $9 million.

During the course of the year, there was an increase in the actual probate lodgements, and $10.9 million was actually collected above the current budget of $9.4 million. It was a $1.5 million increase.

Mr PICTON: You are saying that $10.9 million was received, even though the budget papers are saying that there was an estimated result of $9.3 million for 2017-18?

Mr PEARCE: That is correct. There were additional—

Mr PICTON: So the budget is wrong?

Mr PEARCE: No, there were additional lodgements during the course of the year, and that resulted in the increase above the budget estimate.

Mr PICTON: Why would that not be reflected in the—

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, can I interrupt. I have a little bit more housekeeping. There are two things I want to bring up. The first is that any questions from any members will be directed to the Attorney. In the first instance, you identified the Chief Justice, as well. You must, in fact, address the Attorney. The other thing is that I omitted to welcome the member for Kavel, who has replaced the member for Hammond. Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Thank you. To the Attorney, and obviously it is up to you to delegate as required, you are outlining to the committee that the budget paper estimate of 2017-18 of $9.3 million is wrong and that $10.7 million, I believe you said, was actually received in that year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. I will ask Mr Pearce to confirm the extra deaths and/or applications in the 2017-18 year.

Mr PEARCE: The figure arrived at was $10.9 million. There were CPI increases since the original budget and, because the fee has only been in for a couple of years, we were actually still estimating what the total budget should be. That is why the figure is above what the initial budget set was.

Mr PICTON: Does that mean that the estimated budget for 2018-19 of $9.7 million is actually lower than the revised estimate would be, based on the revised estimated result from 2017-18?

Mr PEARCE: No, we are still estimating that it will be $9.7 million, because we do not have a fixed trend to indicate that it is going to be higher.

Mr PICTON: Is this something that the courts or the AGD have consulted with Treasury about in coming up with these estimates?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, do you still share the view that these fees, which are obviously increasing, are the reintroduction of death duties? To quote you from the house:

…a huge profit of millions of dollars a year from the probate fees, not with any great benefit that I can see back to the probate office, but it still sits there with the same people, just about with quill and ink doing their work in fairly primitive conditions, I think, in the worst court in Australia in the sense of its infrastructure and amenities.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the new formula that was introduced by the previous government is a form of reintroduction. It is fair to say, as I also said at the time, that it is cheaper to die in Victoria than it is to die in South Australia. Nevertheless, fortunately the application of funds towards a new electronic system in the courts has been a very substantial cost.

As you can see, member for Kaurna, whilst this revenue has provided a much greater revenue stream than even expected from the former government's formula, significant moneys have been applied towards the new electronic system, on which the probate division is the first to go online. I am happy to invite the Chief Justice to make any other comment in respect of that and how it is advancing for opening later this year.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The launch of the electronic court management system will be at the end of November—I think 26 November—with the introduction of electronic applications for probate. The system will be online and will be operated by smart forms with drop-down boxes. If legally represented, the applicants will not even have to take the original will into the probate office but will provide it electronically. It will speed up the processing of applications for probate, which will more quickly release substantial amounts of money that are ordinarily tied up in the estate of deceased persons.

Mr PICTON: What is the current length of time for a grant of probate in South Australia and how does that compare with other jurisdictions?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I think it is around six weeks. I am not sure of that exact figure, but it has blown out recently: there is a backlog of about 600 to 700 cases. That has been exacerbated by the need to take staff online to prepare for the electronic court management system and electronic filing.

Later, in October, we will cease receiving applications in hard paper altogether. Between then and the launch of the electronic system in November, all outstanding applications on paper will have been disposed of and will be in the new system at the end of November, where the applications are, as I said, processed electronically and very quickly.

Mr PICTON: So, if I were to pass away right now, how long would it take for probate to happen on my estate?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: It is doubtful that the application would be put in on paper before we stop taking paper applications, so it would not be until sometime in December.

Mr PICTON: Probate would be granted on a death today in December; is that what you are saying?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes.

Mr PICTON: How does that compare with other jurisdictions?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I think it varies. There are a couple of state jurisdictions—New South Wales in particular, I think, has always had a faster turnaround than South Australia. I suspect that we will lead the country with the electronic applications. No other system in this country will be as advanced electronically. Just to give you an idea, the applicant, as I said, will use a smart form format to lodge the application. The back end of the system will then translate all that information into a grant of probate automatically. Our examiners, who at the moment pore over paper and give the paper to clerks who manually prepare a grant, will simply review and check a grant which will have been generated electronically and automatically.

We are expecting the system to be much faster. It will reduce mistakes. To give you a simple example, the Greek nursing home for the aged at Ridleyton is actually in Brompton. That address is often confused, requiring a requisition to be sent to the applicant to change the address of the place of death. The system will now automatically generate the correct address of the nursing home as soon as it is entered. That gives you an idea of the potential that this system has for speeding things up.

Mr PICTON: What reduction has been made in FTEs for the Probate Registry both this year and in coming years in the forward estimates?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There are clerks who would have dealt with the hard copy who will be put into the general Civil Registry as a result of this move. I think there are two or three who will move from probate into the general Civil Registry and who will not be required full-time in probate matters. The actual reduction of FTEs overall as a result of the introduction of the electronic court management system will have to await the rolling out into civil, where we are hoping there will be many efficiencies as well.

Mr PICTON: Will the increased income that is coming through stay with the Probate Registry or in the Courts Administration Authority, or does it go back to Treasury and consolidated revenue?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There is a complex arrangement with the fees. Some fees the court takes go into what is called the administered budget, a special budget that pays for judges' salaries and the like; others go back into general revenue. Probate fees go into the administered budget, that is, a special allocated budget for judicial salaries.

Mr PICTON: I have one last point of clarification on this subject. I understand what you are saying in terms of a death now and how long of a wait there is. Of the people who are currently waiting, what is the longest wait that anybody has had at this point in time?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I do not know, and it would not be very useful just to pick that figure out because some of the waits are as a result of requisitions, that is, requests for corrections and further information. There might be all sorts of reasons for the delay. In terms of a delay where no requisitions are required, I am not sure what the longest has been because it has varied.

Mr PICTON: Could you take that on notice?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: We can provide that information. Can I say that we have actually had staff working overtime, on weekends and the like, to try to keep up with the applications, so it has varied over the last few months. A number of measures have been taken to try to speed it up as much as we can.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Attorney, did you consult with the former solicitor-general before you made a payment to Henry Keogh—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, do you have a budget line for that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes. Agency Statements, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 124, ministerial responsibilities. Did you consult with the former solicitor-general before you made a payment of $2.57 million to accused murderer Henry Keogh?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am struggling to see any reference in the budget to that matter, and as the member knows—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The former solicitor-general is sitting alongside you. He wrote a detailed report on the guilt or innocence of Henry Keogh. Did you speak to him before you made that payment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As the member knows, these are matters that I have canvassed in the parliament.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We are in the parliament again; you can canvass them again. Did you consult with the former solicitor-general before making a payment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will not be adding to the comments I have made in the parliament.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Do you refuse to answer the question?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Mr Chairman?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, does this relate particularly to the budget? The Attorney has suggested that it is not referred to.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Ministerial responsibilities, Mr Chairperson. The opening statement of the objective is that the 'courts administer justice on behalf of the people of South Australia'. Did the Attorney-General consult with the former solicitor-general, who did an in-depth report into the Henry Keogh case and the murder of Anna-Jane Cheney, before making a payment of $2.57 million to accused murderer Henry Keogh?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As indicated, I refer to—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He is right next to you; you can just ask him.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I refer to my answers in the parliament on this matter.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, it does not quite work in the way that you are suggesting, that is, asking advisers to answer the question. You must direct your questions to the Attorney.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have not directed any questions to the Chief Justice, although I note that the Chief Justice is an independent officer and can speak his mind when he sees fit. Again, I ask the Attorney-General: did she consult with anyone in the Courts Administration Authority about a payment of $2.57 million to Henry Keogh?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I have answered questions in relation to this matter to the parliament, and I refer to my answers in Hansard.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Have you issued any instructions to any officers within the Courts Administration Authority not to cooperate or not to answer any questions with any integrity agencies?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I have answered questions in the parliament, which you would know, member for West Torrens, because you asked the questions.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is the Courts Administration Authority subject to investigation by the Ombudsman on behalf of actions taken by the Attorney-General?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would have to look at the Ombudsman Act again, but I do not think that would be the case in relation to the Courts Administration Authority being the subject of it, but I will certainly take that on notice and will check with the Ombudsman Act.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So, when deciding to pay accused murderer Henry Keogh $2.57 million, did the Attorney-General at any stage think to pick up the telephone to the former solicitor-general at any stage of that decision-making process?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have indicated, they are matters which I have answered in the parliament with which you are familiar because you asked the questions.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not recall ever asking you whether you consulted with the former solicitor-general.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, as the member for West Torrens fully knows, these are not matters in the budget. I note that you have asked questions of the Treasurer in respect of—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, I disagree with you because there is a note—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Mr Chairman—

The CHAIR: Point of order, member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: I have been having a close look at page 124. I do not know whether the member for West Torrens has a different page 124 from the one I have, but I do not see any reference there—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: To Henry Keogh? No, there is no mention of Henry Keogh anywhere in the budget—nowhere.

The CHAIR: Nor, member for West Torrens, is there any indication or budget lines relating to telephone conversations that the Attorney may have had. Please, come back to questions relating to the budget.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will. It is interesting that the Attorney says that she did not consult with the former solicitor-general. Is it not true that the former solicitor-general did an in-depth report into the Keogh matter?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, Mr Chairman, these are matters that I have canvassed in the parliament. There is no reference in the Courts Administration Authority provision, which we have open in the committee, so I just refer the member back to the parliament.

Mr PICTON: Attorney-General, to be quite honest I have not asked you about this in the parliament, but I have listened very attentatively to the questions that you have been asked in the parliament and the answers that you have given. You have not at any time answered whether you have spoken to the now Chief Justice and former solicitor-general about this matter before you decided to give Henry Keogh $2.5 million of taxpayers' funds. He is sitting right next to you now.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna—

Mr PICTON: I think it would be appropriate—

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna—

Mr PICTON: —if you could explain to us what you have not done in Hansard—whether you consulted him on this payment.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, it is not for this committee to ask the Attorney whether or not she has had conversations. These are queries about budget lines and expenditure.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, $2.57 million is not expenditure?

Mr PICTON: Chair, I raise a point of order in terms of the fact that $2.57 million has been acquitted of taxpayers' funds, which deserves to be asked about in this parliament, and, secondly, that we are asking about the Courts Administration Authority, which we know is a body which the Attorney-General, of whatever stripe, can consult from time to time about matters of the justice of this state. We think it is appropriate that the Attorney should have to answer as to whether or not on this matter of important justice in this state she has consulted the judiciary?

The CHAIR: So your question to the Attorney is?

Mr PICTON: The question is—

The CHAIR: To the Attorney?

Mr PICTON: —to the Attorney: did you consult with the Chief Justice and former solicitor-general before you made a payment to Henry Keogh?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have indicated, I have answered questions—

Mr PICTON: No, you have not.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —in the parliament.

Mr PICTON: You have not answered that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: And should the member want to raise other questions in the parliament, he is entitled to do so.

Mr PICTON: This is the parliament.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: But this is the committee.

Mr PICTON: This is the parliament.

The CHAIR: This is a committee of the budget estimates.

Mr PICTON: This is the parliament.

The CHAIR: Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As a committee of the parliament, it is vested today with the responsibility of being available to answer questions in respect of the budget. The member well knows that there are other forums in which he can ask those questions, and he can do so. Accordingly, I refer to the matters I have raised in the parliament.

Mr PICTON: This is the highest forum in the state. This is the state parliament. This is the committee stage of the examination of the budget in which money is allocated to the judiciary to perform its functions. I think the people of South Australia, particularly the parliament, deserve to know whether or not you consulted the judiciary about this payment.

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order: what the member for Kaurna might take a view about one way or the other is a matter for the member for Kaurna. What has fallen just now is simply the expression of his opinion or otherwise a statement. I do not hear a question. The members have obviously been asked to address questions to the Attorney, rather than just give gratuitous statements.

The CHAIR: I accept the point of order, member for Heysen. This is the opportunity to ask questions. It is not the opportunity to provide commentary or make a speech. Member for Kaurna, I am still struggling to see a budget line relating to these particular questions.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will give you one: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 128. There is a description/objective, which states:

Provision of administrative support to participating courts in the criminal jurisdiction necessary to allow them to resolve matters fairly, justly and efficiently.

Did the Attorney-General read the former solicitor-general's report into the Henry Keogh matter before making that man a payment of $2.57 million?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, this is a matter which relates to the objective of the criminal jurisdiction and the administration of such matters in the courts. The matter that is being questioned now is entirely outside the remit of sub-program 1.1. While we have members of the Courts Administration Authority here, I invite any other members of the committee to ask any questions they would like of importance to the substance of the budget.

The CHAIR: Member for Florey, do you have a question?

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, I do. Thank you for drawing me in at this particular moment. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 127 and a couple of other places where it talks about a fair and just justice system. How much has been saved by the closure of the Holden Hill courthouse? Is there any indication from data collected since the closure to show where these cases have been heard?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for her question because she has raised this previously. Indeed, I took the opportunity at the time to inquire of the Courts Administration Authority as to questions of costing in relation to that decision, now an historical decision, for her benefit. I am advised that these are matters that were referred to in a previous Budget and Finance Committee. My recollection—I think even the Chief Justice might remember this—is that it was about $1 million. We will check that, of course, and get back to you. The relocation of services was to the Elizabeth court. Some work was done to the Elizabeth court to accommodate extra work and, in addition, some to the Adelaide Magistrates Court. I am advised that it is $320,000, so over the forward estimates about $1.2 million.

Ms BEDFORD: Has any thought been given to reopening the Holden Hill courthouse to remove the disadvantage to members of the surrounding community?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As that is a matter for the CAA, I will throw to the Chief Justice.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Within the current budgets under which we operate, there is really no prospect of finding the money to reopen Holden Hill.

Ms BEDFORD: How much money do you think would be necessary to reopen Holden Hill?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: At the very least you would have to find new premises.

Ms BEDFORD: New premises?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes; I think the sale of the Holden Hill premises is well on the way.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will ask Ms Burgess to elaborate on that.

Ms BURGESS: The sale of Holden Hill is now with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure for them to take that through the process that goes with disposal of those assets; so that is on its way to being disposed of.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Attorney, next to you is sitting one of the most pre-eminent legal minds in South Australia.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I just have a budget line?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sure. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 128, 'resolve matters fairly, justly and efficiently'.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Next to you is sitting one of the most pre-eminent legal minds in South Australia. Before he was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he was the solicitor-general and he wrote a detailed report on the Henry Keogh matter. Can you imagine people watching this on television at home, seeing you sitting right next to him and thinking it is absurd that you will not allow him to speak—

Mr CREGAN: Point of order, Chair.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —or that you will not answer a question about whether or not you consulted him—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —before you paid an accused murderer—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —$2.57 million.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, of course, sir.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for West Torrens. We have a point of order?

Mr CREGAN: Mr Chairman, it is intolerably clear that what is being put is in fact not a question: it is an opportunistic statement and it leads to matters that have been ventilated in the parliament. Quite apart from anything else, the member for West Torrens has not drawn us to a budget item and has not asked a question in relation to a budget item.

The CHAIR: He referred to a budget line; I will give him that. The question was very broad and it seemed to me to contain a lot of commentary. I ask the member for West Torrens to—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am waiting for an answer.

The CHAIR: What was the question? Could you repeat the question for me?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will repeat it; yes, I will. Next to the Attorney-General—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to answer the question. Firstly, I do agree that both people sitting next to me are eminent people in the field of judicial administration in this state.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Hear, hear!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As to the rest of the question, they are matters that I have canvassed in the parliament. That is the forum in which any further matters can be raised. We are here today to give an opportunity for members of the committee to ask questions as to this year's budget, and we are here with the personnel ready to do it.

The CHAIR: You are quite right, Attorney. That is the opportunity before the committee, and I ask them to—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have here an email sent by Lucinda Byers—

The CHAIR: No, member for West Torrens, no.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Mr Chair, I ask you to rule out any other questions on this matter.

The CHAIR: No. I am going to rule that out of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You do not know what it is, sir.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You have not heard what it is.

The CHAIR: You are quoting from an email.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: From the Attorney's office. She says it is not a budget matter. She says, 'Only that the AG wants it settled,' the Keogh matter, 'asap, and that it is apparently helpful from a budget perspective to have the cost accounted for this [financial] year'. Why?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Mr Chairman, I would ask that you make a ruling in respect of further questions on this matter.

The CHAIR: Yes, look—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You can continue to ask questions—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Why did you rush this payment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —and I will continue to give the same answer.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, member for Kaurna and all members, we have exhausted the questions and the answers on this particular topic—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So much for openness and transparency.

The CHAIR: —and I ask that the questions, from now, refer to the budget papers.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They have, sir.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: I have a question in relation to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 124, in terms of the objectives of the Courts Administration Authority. Can the Attorney outline any matters on which she has consulted the Chief Justice or the Courts Administration Authority since she was appointed as the Attorney-General in March?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As Attorney-General, I have written on a number of occasions to the Chief Justice, almost on a weekly basis, in respect of the administration of the courts but, more particularly, in relation to his advice or opportunity to make a contribution as an important stakeholder on proposed legislation.

The judiciary is an important part of our judicial system, as are other relevant stakeholders, such as the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, the Law Society of South Australia, the Bar Association and South Australia Police. They are all relevant stakeholders in many of the laws that are generated from the Attorney-General's Department. So, yes, there are a number of matters on which I have written to the Chief Justice, particularly on law reform, and I am pleased to have had his advice on the same.

Mr PICTON: It is obviously quite a close relationship in terms of meeting weekly, as I think you said, and also writing to the Chief Justice to seek his advice in relation to matters where you believe there is an interest in terms of the administration of justice in the state.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just a small correction. I do not meet with him weekly—I think he has many more important things to do—but I do correspond. On average, I would send a letter once a week. Sometimes it relates to the administration of the courts and sometimes it relates to areas of law reform. There are occasionally other situations where I would seek the advice of the Chief Justice because he has a dual role, both as the head of the council that is responsible for the administration of courts in South Australia and as the head of the administration of courts and justice in South Australia. As the Chief Justice in that role, which is the only role he has had since the change of government, from my perspective, I have continued to consult on those matters.

Mr PICTON: Yet you will not tell us whether you consulted him on the Keogh matter.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: These are matters on which the Chairman has already indicated a ruling.

Mr PICTON: Because you did not.

The CHAIR: Point of order, member for Colton?

Mr COWDREY: No, sorry; I have a question.

Mr PICTON: I have another question.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, before you go on, I will say again that we have exhausted questions on this topic. We have 25 minutes left on the Courts Administration Authority, and I call the member for Colton.

Mr COWDREY: My question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 24. Can the Attorney inform the committee about the additional funding provided to Forensic Science SA in the budget?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The reason I particularly think this is important, and the reason the government felt it was important to provide additional funding for coronial services, was to support the increase in the number and complexity of post-mortems and pathology reviews requested by the Coroner.

The budget provides an additional $490,000 in this financial year and over $400,000 ongoing from 2019-20 to Forensic Science SA. This is $1.8 million over four years for forensic coronial services. Obviously the agency provides independent, high-quality and expert scientific evidence, opinion and information to the justice system. It was important—in fact, we felt critical—that there be some additional resource here to ensure that we arrest the delay and extra work that was being undertaken by the coroner. An additional temporary deputy state coroner was appointed as part of the increased budget allocation from, at that stage, back in 2017, and she continues in that role.

Importantly, in this last financial year but continuing, firstly, the joint inquest into the deaths of Graziella Daillér and Dion Muir has now been completed and we are awaiting a finding in that regard—a matter which I am sure members of the committee who were here in the previous parliament would appreciate was a very serious matter and received some attention in the parliament—and, secondly, the inquest into the death of Jorge Castillo-Riffo is part heard, which involves the sad death on the Royal Adelaide Hospital site. So a significant amount of extra work has been undertaken. There is also an inquest into the death of Alexander Kuskoff, which has commenced and will be completed in the 2018-19 year.

Complex coronial inquests do, of course, absorb considerable funds and the time of the Coroner's Court. We hope that the extra funding for Forensic Science SA will assist in dealing with that matter. The Chief Justice would also like to make a contribution.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The Forensic Science services budget you just mentioned is not a budget allocation to the Courts Administration Authority but, as I understand it, directly to that centre. There has been a difficulty in a budget being allocated to us for reports, because we have no control over the centre and their cost basis but, as I understand it, this is a direct contribution to Forensic Science to help them with their expenditure in doing this work.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 126, which refers to the higher courts redevelopment. Attorney, could you clarify for the committee whether you still regard this, as you have previously been quoted, as 'putting new carpet in the Colosseum and expecting the Christians to be grateful'. If so, why have you not been successful in getting more funding for the courts for any further redevelopments in this budget?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am pleased to report to the committee that the higher courts redevelopment is continuing. I have been receiving briefings in respect of both the work at the Sir Samuel Way Building and planning for the work at the 1 Gouger Street Supreme Court to facilitate this redevelopment. I am going to ask the Chief Justice to give the committee an update as to how that is progressing, which I am sure he will be pleased to do.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Hansen Yuncken is the principal contractor that is going to undertake these works. They have given us a contractual assurance—I cannot remember exactly what it is called—to the effect that they should be able to manage the building work within the allocated budget.

We expect the first work on the redevelopment of the courtrooms on the Supreme Court Gouger Street/King William Street corner complex to start next month or in November. The completion of those works and the Sir Samuel Way works is at the end of 2019. I think the architect, Hassell, have really made a silk purse out of a sow's ear with the ideas they have, and we are looking forward to the completion of those works.

Mr PICTON: The original completion date for this project was going to be June 2019, and this budget paper reveals that it has now been delayed until December 2019. What has caused that delay, and has that resulted in any changes or blowouts to the budget? What has accounted for that six-month delay in this project?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I think it is just the sort of creep that you often see with these things. Most of the procurement process went according to plan. It might have crept over a little, but the staging of the works—the works were primarily to get criminal courts on the fifth floor of the Sir Samuel Way Building, which is all civil courts. That could not proceed until we upgraded the civil courts in the old Supreme Court complex; these works have to be sequential.

In between that, there is the building that used to be Jeffcott Chambers, which needs to be renovated. We are trying to work out where that will happen, as between the old Supreme Court building and the Sir Samuel Way Building is tricky. Until we get all the tenders in and determined, we will not really know exactly how to proceed. As I said, I think it is primarily the creep of these things. It has not led to any blowout. As I said earlier, the assurance is that we should be able to manage this within the budget.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, just returning to my original question, which you did not answer—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If I could just perhaps add to the previous answer to indicate that as at 30 June this year the project had expended $1.6 million of the total $30.955 million budget allocation.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, you have previously been on the record saying that this is basically an outrageous development, that it is akin to expecting the 'Christians to be grateful for new carpets in the Colosseum'. You have gone around, particularly in this house, complaining about the need for new courts in this state. Are you disappointed that you have not been able to achieve new courts in this year's budget now that you are the Deputy Premier?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am pleased to have heard the Chief Justice's description of this project as progressing well, and I think it is now described as 'making a silk purse out of a sow's ear'. That is within the Colosseum.

Mr PICTON: Do you now owe an apology to all those people you have been promising that you will upgrade the courts?

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, that is out of order.

Mr PICTON: Why?

The CHAIR: Can I remind all committee members that questions are to be about what is in the budget, not what is not in the budget.

Mr PICTON: With respect, Chair, the higher courts redevelopment is in this budget. I think we are entitled to ask the Attorney whether she thinks that is an appropriate project. She has previously said it is not an appropriate project and not an appropriate use of taxpayers' funds. Now she will not clarify whether she does think it is a good project or whether she thinks, as she previously did, that it is not and that there should be a grander courts redevelopment project.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If I might respond, Mr Chairman, by indicating that I am, I think like most of the legal and judicial world, deeply disappointed at the former government's announcement prior to the last election that they were going to build, I think, a $550 million redevelopment, which they then cancelled shortly after the election. It had been announced and cancelled several times since the time I have been in the parliament. It is bitterly disappointing when an extraordinary amount of work goes toward a redevelopment of our higher courts in South Australia, which have been described as the worst in the country.

I share the view with not just a number of those who have to work in the courts but also the witnesses, the victims, and even the defendants, plaintiffs and respondents who appear in these courts, that the level of infrastructure has been very poor. I think this could easily be described as an interim measure for the ultimate resolution of the rebuild of the infrastructure in this important area, the higher courts redevelopment, as it is known. This $31 million project will give the courts at least some urgent jury room space for criminal trials in the Sir Samuel Way Building and extra civil courts at 1 Gouger Street, as well as some accommodation for our registrars—masters, I think, actually; at least the masters in any event—in the old Jeffcott Chambers building.

These are all initiatives that will help to at least provide some interim urgent support. Nevertheless, I think it is commonly known and would be greatly appreciated by all those who have to work in this environment, particularly by any of those who slip down the stairs and fall into a mattress, which was disclosed in this committee several years ago as being the work health and safety model to protect those who work in 1 Gouger Street. I think that it is disappointing that that project had not been progressed.

As a new government, obviously we are conscious of the importance of this infrastructure and we will continue to look at how we might advance some appropriate redevelopment in relation to this area. However, in doing that, the first thing I have done as a new Attorney is to inspect the sites of those premises that we have to date. They include, obviously, the Coroner's Court, which sits at the back of the Magistrates Court in Adelaide, and some of the regional courts. In fact, the member for Kavel and I visited the Mount Barker court in his electorate. These are all important pieces of infrastructure that really are in high need of some redevelopment, and the higher courts—that is, the Supreme Court and District Court—are in current premises that are in urgent need.

This $31 million redevelopment will provide what I would see as a sort of 10 to 15-year provision of support, but it will be on the agenda of the new government to look at how we might, in the long-term, remedy what has been a disgraceful abandonment of higher court facilities in this state.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, are you saying that you are commencing work to undertake a process of now investing in a higher court upgrade, or is there no action being undertaken by the government in relation to the higher courts?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The first budget of the government, I think it is clear, is one where we needed to identify where areas were in urgent need of funding. Even with projects that might otherwise be meritorious, we have had to look at how we might trim that for the purpose of ensuring that we honoured the commitments of the new government that we made to the people of South Australia in the lead-up to the election. We have done that and we are proud to have done that. However, with that, of course there have to be some efficiency measures, and they are matters that obviously are the priority of the first budget.

I can assure the committee that it is the cabinet's long-term view, though, to look at other proposals that have been put to the government, many of which are meritorious, but the first budget is to get our books in order, to get our house in order and to ensure that we are in the best possible position to be able to then prioritise what are the next stages for decision of the government.

Mr PICTON: So, Attorney, you do not regard your previous comments in terms of the courts—the many, many comments that you have made in terms of the courts needing to be upgraded, including today—as any sort of commitment to take action in terms of building new courts?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have answered that.

Ms BEDFORD: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 12 and others, about the efficient and fair justice system.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, what was the page?

Ms BEDFORD: I refer to pages 12 and 127. They both mention fair and efficient justice systems. I understand there is a strategy to expand audiovisual appearances and online access to courts. I would like to know whether any money is allocated for these measures?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to invite the Chief Justice to give you an update in that regard. I think it is fair to say that it is something that he has championed, and he will have an opportunity to outline to you the work that is being done in this area. This is an opportunity especially to make available audiovisual links that are better able to meet the obligations of courts and tribunals providing judicial work to those in regions as well. It has been an important initiative for which I commend the Chief Justice. I invite him to advise you on an update.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: In terms of AVLs, they were first introduced in 2007-08, with something like 48 units in the Courts Administration Authority and 12 in Corrections. Since 2011, that has been increased to something like 207 audiovisual link endpoints. They are all managed by the Courts Administration Authority and there is a budget for managing them, in terms of maintenance and the booking systems that are done by the Courts Administration Authority. I do not think there is any current budget for expanding it beyond what it is now, so there is no new initiative. There has been that increase from 2007-08 through to the present time. Courts use it extensively.

We were hoping for substantial savings in prisoner movement budgets. I do not think we have achieved that to the extent that we had hoped because, as many as we do by AVL, there is still an occasional need to bring some prisoners to courts and that has a certain expense, but we have been trying to reduce that budget and make savings there.

Our biggest problem at the moment is the lack of facilities in correctional institutions and in police cell areas and that means there is a backlog. If one court hearing goes over time then that puts out many other courts. We are trying to find ways of working with the Department for Correctional Services to find different forms of links. Sometimes even a telephone link will do the job. We are hoping that will happen in the future. In terms of electronic access generally, the new electronic court management system will provide that, especially in the civil area for, obviously, civil disputes. In the criminal area, it will primarily help the laying of charges. The benefits will be with other justice agencies: the DPP and police.

Ms BEDFORD: So there is really no benefit at all for the increased number of, say, domestic violence cases that might have been heard at Holden Hill and now have moved to either Elizabeth or the city? So that measure is not going to help anyone in our area at all really, is it? It is really more for regions.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: In the audiovisual area or the electronic court management system?

Ms BEDFORD: The audiovisual. Apparently, one of the things that people were told about recently, following on from my last question, was that the closure of the Holden Hill courthouse would be helped by this new strategy, but, in actual fact, that is really not going to be the case, is it?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: As far as I know, most appearances in the domestic violence courts are still in person, so it has not—

Ms BEDFORD: That is right, so you have an increase in those cases and the closure of the Holden Hill courthouse is going to exacerbate that, in that those people now have to go further to appear in court in what is already a very difficult situation for them.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There may be people who will have to go further. There are swings and roundabouts with these things. The court location depended on police regional distribution of work as well. Sometimes it might actually help some people and not others. I am not aware of any analysis of just how much further people have had to travel by moves, primarily, to Elizabeth from Holden Hill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I might just add for the member's benefit that one of the other areas—apart from the AVL and the ECMS projects, both of which have been outlined by the Chief Justice—is the digital capacity in our courts to deal with a modern form of court reporting. Brilliant court reporters, who also work here in our parliament, are a rare species now and are therefore not able to complement and replace those who go into retirement, so there has been a slow introduction initiated by the former government to provide for digital capability in the courts.

I think about $0.8 million was allocated in last year's budget to install the digital audio remote monitoring technology. For the benefit of the committee, I can report that that is now in 10 criminal and six civil courtrooms in the Supreme, District and Youth courts. That, of course, is a significant cost but, obviously, with great long-term benefits. I commend the Courts Administration Authority for not only presenting this as an option as to how we might deal with future transcription services, which are, of course, critical in our criminal courts particularly, but also their work in continuing to implement that and for South Australians to enjoy the benefits of it.

Ms BEDFORD: There is nothing really in the budget to assist with the larger numbers of domestic violence cases, is there?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will try to find the material on that for the member. There has been, firstly, an additional magistrate. In December 2015, there was a COAG agreement in respect of national domestic violence policy and one of the outcomes from that was that, in the 2016 funding, the government allocated to appoint an additional magistrate. I can report to the committee that magistrate Duncan was appointed to the position of manager of family violence on 8 April this year. I can honestly say that the current government does not take credit for that, because the preliminary work had been done by the former government.

This year, on 9 April, magistrate McGrath was appointed to the position of the major family violence list until 8 April 2019. The numbers and frequency of the dedicated family violence list, for which there is some extra detail in the budget papers, have been increased, where required, in some Magistrates Court locations. There is at least one specialist family violence intervention order list weekly at all metropolitan courts. Magistrates attended a commonwealth training initiative for the National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book resource.

The manager for the family violence list regularly presented at internal and external forums to inform and exchange information in relation to family violence issues. The manager for the family violence list attended the June 2018 APY lands circuit with the circuit magistrate to identify needs. A commitment was made to hold a court user group meeting, attended by representatives of Cross Borders and the APY council, on the last morning of future circuits. There is quite a lot of extra information with which I have been provided, which I am happy to forward to the member.

This is a priority for the new government, that is, to protect women and children, particularly in respect of family and domestic violence. This service is indeed important for the first Council of Attorneys-General, which I attended in Perth on behalf of the new government. The federal Attorney-General raised with me and other members the opportunity to support some of the utilisation of our state's and magistrates' work to receive and deal with federal jurisdiction matters.

Quite obviously, like any other state jurisdiction, we are looking for some financial support if the federal administration wishes us to undertake this role. It is fair to say that in a number of cases, particularly where children are involved and there is the existence of any Family Court orders, we do not want to have a tension between either the orders to protect children or the safety of South Australians dealt with in state courts, as distinct from, perhaps, access or contact rights of a non-custodial parent to children.

We are looking at how we might better implement that so that we address the biggest concern we have had in relation to court matters for people and families in distress: to ensure that they are not having to go to one court to get protection—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order.

The CHAIR: Yes, point of order from the member for West Torrens, and I take the point of order. Attorney, we have reached the allotted time for that particular portfolio. Given that, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio of the Courts Administration Authority to be completed.